: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to make necessary arrangements to upgrade video-conferencing facility within three months, to facilitate judges sitting at a different bench (either the Principal Seat or Madurai Bench) to hear review applications.
"We understand that the video-conferencing facility is available, but possibly requires upgradation and arrangement in a manner where urgent directions are required," the first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam said while disposing of a PIL by Vasanthakumar Vengadessane.
The petitioner said he was facing a situation where a review application had been placed before a HC Bench,which had not passed the original order even when the judges, party to the earlier ones,were available to assign the matter,albeit at the Principal Seat,when the matter pertains to Madurai Bench.
Vasanthakumar said that in view of provisions of Order 47 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, all review petitions should be heard by the same judge who passed the order.
The bench said a reading of the provision shows if the judge who passed the order or anyone of the judges who passed the order in a Bench of which review was applied for continues to hold office, then the matter must be placed before that judge, subject to him not being precluded by absence or otherwise for next six months after the review application.
The circumstances under which a different division bench of Madurai came to examine the review application was due to the fact that the earlier judges were attached to this court and available, but at the Principal Seat and not at Madurai Bench.
As per roster practice, judges normally go for three months to Madurai Bench unless they were permanently assigned there. Thus, they would be available but at a different bench, the bench added.
Citing a Supreme Court verdict,the bench said it felt the issue was no more res Integra (an entirely new or untouched matter) and that action to be followed in such a situation has to be in conformity with the observations by the Apex Court.
In fact it has been observed that practical difficulties, if any, can really be obliterated with the technological innovations now available.
The petitioner has also prayed that video conferencing facility be made available and be utilized where necessary for posting such review applications.
"In so far as this prayer is concerned,especially keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the state government should make necessary arrangements and complete the process in three months, in the larger interest of the litigating public.
